Sex Crimes

Published on: June 25, 2012

The Extent of Plaintiff’s Resistence During Rape Discussed by Court

by Stephen Bilkis

The accused, a bachelor of approximately thirty-seven years of age met an incoming plane at LaGuardia Airport, from which disembarked a twenty-year-old petite, attractive second-year student woman, an unworldly girl, evidently unacquainted with New York City and the sophisticated city ways, a girl who proved to be, as indicated by the testimony, incredibly gullible, trusting and naive.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the testimony indicates that the accused struck up a conversation with her, posing as a psychologist doing a magazine article and using a name that was not his, inducing the woman to answer questions for an interview.

The evidence further shows that the accused invited the complainant woman to accompany him in an automobile to the Grand Central Station in Manhattan. They were accompanied in the automobile by other persons, some of whom were introduced by the accused as colleagues on a professional basis. There were numerous detours before they found their way to the Grand Central Station. First, they were taken to an apartment on the east side where some of the parties were left behind.

Published on: June 24, 2012

Defedant Seeks to Have New Parole Hearing

by Stephen Bilkis

On November 17, 1990, a thirty-two year old plumber who was married with three children lived on West 143rd Street in Manhattan. At around 6:43 in the evening, the plumber met his brother’s wife’s boyfriend in front of 225 West 129th Street. The began to argue. They parted and went their separate ways. Later that night, the plumber and the boyfriend ran into each other again. This time, the boyfriend had another man with him. They were in a park near West 129th Street in Manhattan.

During this confrontation, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the boyfriend punched the plumber in the face. He fell to the ground and pulled out a handgun that he possessed a target license to carry. He fired at the boyfriend from his position on the ground. The boyfriend was struck in his chest and was killed. The plumber left the area, but later turned himself in to the police on November 26, 1990. The plumber stated that the shooting occurred in self-defense. He stated that when he was on the ground, he believed that the boyfriend was going to shoot him. He stated that he only shot him to prevent being shot. The police reports of the incident indicated that the boyfriend was not armed at the time of the shooting. The defendant plumber claimed that in 1982, the plumber had been shot by another man in a vehicle accident because the other man had hit his parked car. The plumber was shot twice during that incident after the other man went back to his own car to obtain his registration and insurance paperwork. When he returned to the plumber’s vehicle, he had a gun and shot him twice. In that incident, when the plumber was incapacitated on the ground, the other man attempted to shoot him again at close range. The gun misfired and the plumber’s life was spared. The plumber stated that the way that the boyfriend moved and his mannerisms, along with the 1982 history, made him believe that the boyfriend was in possession of a weapon and that he intended to use it.

The plumber did not have any criminal history, and at trial the Assistant District Attorney requested that he be sentenced to the minimum sentence required for his offense. That sentence would have been fifteen years to life. He was first eligible for parole in 2005. He was not a problem when he was in prison and did not have any disciplinary reports in his file. He worked during his prison term as a plumber’s helper in the maintenance department. He also worked as a program aide for the disabled and as a metal fabricator in the industries work area. He completed his high school equivalency degree and obtained an associate of arts of religious education college degree. A Brooklyn Criminal Lawyer said he also attended several behavioral and psychological programs to reduce his risk of recidivism upon release. These programs included Violence/Aggressive Behavior Programs, Basic Parenting, Hispanic Needs Program to Eradicate Violent Behavior.

Published on: June 24, 2012

Defendant Claims Rape of Wife Was Allowable Due to Marriage

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 7 June 1982, defendant and his wife separated after fourteen years of marriage. Defendant moved out of their marital residence and rented an apartment.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that on 3 November 1982, defendant was summoned and appeared before the Family Court to answer charges that he harassed his estranged wife. A Temporary Order of Protection was issued.

Published on: June 24, 2012

Court Finds Insufficient Evidence for Grand Jury Indictment of Rape

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

Two male persons, defendants, forcibly abducted the victim (of the assaults) in an automobile. While being carried away in the car, the victim was given a choice of either participating in sodomy or submitting to rape but refused either alternative. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said after having been slapped around and frustrated in an attempt to escape, she was raped by each defendant, in turn, while the other held a knife-point to her throat and threatened to cut her if she didn’t stop screaming. Nevertheless, she resisted, but in vain. She was not examined by a doctor until 10 August 1965 and the police were not notified until 12 August 1965. She made no immediate disclosure to her parents although, within a day or two after the event, she told a neighbor about it. Other than the victim’s own testimony, there is no evidence that she was abducted by anyone, or that she was in the company of these defendants on the occasion in question or that at or about the time of the occurrences narrated by her, she bore visible marks of recent physical violence or rape.

A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the defendants were apprehended and questioned but denied having been in the girl’s company on the evening in question and specifically denied the charges made. There was no evidence that any knife was found or that either of the defendants had been known to possess one.

Published on: June 24, 2012

Defendant Contends Elements of Rape Crime Not Met

by Stephen Bilkis

A man filed a motion for him to file a late notice of explanation. The man’s counsel has established good reason for late filing of the notice which is attached to the moving papers. As explained on the counsel’s letter, a New York Criminal Lawyer said the alleged criminal acts occurred more than two years ago and making the notice of explanation was difficult. The state of New York noted on the record that they do not oppose the request and the notice will be deemed timely and is directed to be filed.

The second and third branches of the man’s motion concern the counts one and two of the accusation. The count one charged the man with predatory sexual assault against a child allegedly committed when the man was more than 18 years old at which he allegedly committed rape in the first degree against a female who was less than 13 years old. The count two charges was the same crime on the same legal theory against the same complainant. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the counts three and four charges were a criminal sexual act in the first degree with the same victim on the same dates as alleged in counts one and two. The count five charges endangering the welfare of a child encompassing all of the conduct charged in count one through four inclusive.

The man’s counsel first argues that the court should reduce the charge in counts one and two with rape in the first degree with the rule of lenity. The counsel notes that the elements of predatory sexual assault against a child are identical to those of rape in the first degree as charged. Counsel said based on records, the predatory sexual assault against a child is a class A-II felony with a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years to life and a maximum of 25 years to life. By contrast, rape in the first degree is a class B felony, with a mandatory determinate sentence having a minimum of five years and a maximum of 25 years, followed by at least five years of post-release supervision. The two crimes also have different plea bargain restrictions with respect to the offense against a child charge. The plea must be at least to a class C violent felony whereas the man may plead guilty to a class D violent felony in satisfaction of a charge of rape in the first degree.

Published on: June 23, 2012

Can the Agent of a Purchaser of Narcotics be Convicted of Drug Sale?

by Stephen Bilkis

This is the case wherein the court reiterated its New York rule that one who acts solely as the agent of a purchaser of narcotics cannot be convicted of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance.

A New York Criminal Lawyer said that an undercover police officer befriended the defendant in various bars. The police officer, disguising as a drug user, thereafter mentioned to the defendant that he was interested to buy ecstacy. The defendant indicated that he might be of assistance in doing so and invited the undercover to call him whenever needed. In the course of their meeting in a bar, the police officer advised the defendant of his intention to buy cocaine or heroin. The defendant estimated the cost of the quantity of approximately four ounces of cocaine which was between three and four thousand dollars.

After some days, the defendant and the police officer proceeded in a bar in Manhattan. The defendant entered the premises alone, presumably to meet the man who was the seller. The defendant reported to the police officer that the price of the narcotics would be $4,000. The police officer paid the amount and the defendant re-entered the bar to give the payment to the seller. The two proceeded to a discotheque where the actual delivery of the drugs took place.

Published on: June 23, 2012

Court Discusses Possible 5th Amendment Violation

by Stephen Bilkis

Decisions to protect the public from a person who is violently mentally ill can create many fundamental issues of law and civil rights. This legal quandary has been a puzzlement for Americans since our country began. Freedom to live our lives without the fear of the Federal Government removing our freedom without the benefit of a trial before a jury of our peers is fundamental to our belief systems. However, there are times that we must question the benefit of releasing someone who will almost definitely commit a violent crime if they are ever released from an institution. On May 26, 2011 the Supreme Court of New York held a probable cause hearing to determine if a man who was a detained sex offender should remain incarcerated after his pending release date because of his need for civil management.

The Mental Hygiene Law of New York provided the government with a means to deprive citizens of their right to freedom if they were determined to be a threat to themselves or others based on their mental health. Section 10.06(k) of the Mental Hygiene Law does not provide a different rating for sex offenders (sex crimes) who are dangerous and those who are not when recommending civil management. Once an offender has been determined a sex offender who may require civil management, the only requirement is probable cause to detain the subject post release or pre-trial.

The case that was brought before the court in 2011, disclosed that this law was possibly an affront to the United States Constitution. As such, the attorney for the defendant, filed a motion for the Supreme Court to review the Constitutionality of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court examined the conditions of the case. The case involves a man who is detained as a sex offender pending an trial for additional crimes. The trial court in his preliminary hearing found him to be in need of evaluation by the State Office of Mental Health. After the OMH review, it was recommended that the defendant be released from detention under appropriate supervision and treatment into the community pending a hearing of his case. The judge determined that the severity of the charges and the risk to the community was too severe to allow for the release of the defendant pending trial.

Published on: June 23, 2012

sex crimes

by Stephen Bilkis

In New York when an offender commits a sexually related offense, he or she is charged a fee that is designed to defray some of the costs that are incurred by the courts for the prosecution of their case. The surcharge is usually $200.00 plus a victim fee of $10.00. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said that some offenders are entitled to request that the court defer their surcharge if they can show that it will pose an undue hardship to them or their families. However, anyone who is charged with a crime that requires that they serve more than 60 days in jail are determined to not be able to defray the surcharge. The money is removed from their inmate pay for work that they perform while they are incarcerated. It is therefore, not considered to pose an undue burden to them to pay it.

Even if the charge is deferred, the offender will be expected to repay the fee, it only postpones the debt until a time when the offender is more capable of repaying the debt. The court has also ruled that it is not practical to file a motion to defer this payment until an offender has completed the term of his sentence. In other words, if a person has committed a sexually based offense and is convicted, he is responsible to pay this debt to the state. If he files to have the debt deferred before he has completed his prison sentence, it will be denied as a premature request. It is not considered to be an undue burden on a person who is incarcerated. A Nassau County Sex Crimes Lawyer said it can only be deferred if a person demonstrates that the cost of the debt is an undue burden on the offender after they have been released from incarceration and are actively attempting to support themselves or their families.

On July 10, 2003, an offender in Kings County, New York, was convicted of attempted burglary in the second degree. He filed a motion on March 24, 2007, to defer payment of the surcharge because he stated that it was posing an undue hardship on his family. He was sentenced upon his conviction of five years to serve, then five years on parole. He contends that he is not working while in prison and receives no prison wages. He stated that he does not have a means of income or property and that he is indigent. A New York Sex Crimes Lawyer said the prosecution argued against his deferral of the payment. They contend that he committed the crime and that he is sentenced. He will be incarcerated for five years and then on parole for five years. To grant his request to defer payment would be an injustice to the citizens of the state and to the victim. The intent of the surcharge is to help the courts defray the costs that this offender created when he violated the crimes of this state. He is not entitled to defer the surcharge as it is an important way to insure that offenders are made responsible for their actions.

Published on: June 23, 2012

Court Determines Probable Cause for Weapons Charge

by Stephen Bilkis

Parents have told their teenagers for years to watch the company that they keep. That is especially true if the teens are associating with persons who are likely to commit a crime (felony or misdemeanor). The courts are full of people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time based on the company that they were keeping. Some of these people are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. In many cases, just being present with another person when they commit a crime is enough to qualify as party to a crime. Just by being there, the person may be charged with party to a crime of the crime that the other person commits. That rule is especially true if the person does not report the crime that they were present at. Reporting the crime, is an excellent way to show that the person had no intent to be involved in any wrong doing that occurred in his or her presence. Not reporting the crime can also be used to show intent to be involved in the crime.

In one case that was in the court of appeals of the State of New York, on June 26, 1979 dealt precisely with that problem. It was almost ten o’clock at night on March 11, 1978 when four police officers, three male detectives and one female uniformed officer in plain clothes were observing the actions inside a novelty shop on 42nd Street between 7th and 8th Avenues. The police officers watched as two brothers tried on shoulder holsters for firearms. The two brothers were in the company of a female who was the girlfriend of one of the brothers. The brothers purchased two shoulder holsters. The officers observed the transaction and observed the holsters being placed into a bag and given to the men. The officers observed the men and woman leaving the store and walking east on 42nd Street toward Seventh Avenue. The police officers began to follow the group.

The three people continued walking, but they turned around and looked at the police officers behind them several times. They changed directions and took circuitous routes making note that they were obviously being followed. One of the men began to walk in front of the others and gained on them by about twenty feet. The other two remained behind. The police officers also split up to maintain the proper surveillance. The two male detectives followed the man who had split off from the others. The female officer remained with the other male and the female. She followed them from a distance of about twenty feet.

Published on: June 23, 2012

Court Looks at Intent in Criminal Assault Case

by Stephen Bilkis

Sometimes, the cases that reach the Supreme Court on appeal represent a question of law that is similar among several cases. When this happens, the cases are grouped into one with several cases included. One such composite case involved a defendant who was indicted for attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. A New York Criminal Lawyer said he was arrested for shooting a man with whom he had gotten into a disagreement. They had known each other for many years before the disagreement turned violent. The only witness to the altercation was the victim himself. The victim had originally told the police that he did not know who had shot him. It was not until later that he identified his acquaintance as the perpetrator of the assault. The defense attorney for the defendant attempted to have expert testimony presented in court on the inadequacies of eyewitness identifications. The trial court denied his request.

The judge instructed the jury that the defendant could only be convicted of the charge of first degree assault if he caused serious physical injury to the man by means of a deadly weapon with the intent to cause serious physical injury. They were charged that to convict him of second degree weapon possession, they had to prove that the defendant possessed the loaded gun, that he possessed it knowingly, that the gun was operable, and that he had the intent to use it with unlawful intent against the man who was shot. The jury acquitted the defendant of attempted murder and second degree possession of a weapon. He was convicted of first degree assault. A New York Criminal Lawyer said the defense attorney objected to the verdict in court because he maintains that the fact that the defendant was acquitted on the weapon possession count that he could not be convicted for the assault with that weapon.

The trial court rejected the argument of the defense because they claimed that it was not contradictory for the defendant to have possessed the weapon without an intent to use it illegally. He had possession of the weapon without intent to assault anyone earlier in the day before he decided to use it to shoot the victim. The Appellate court agreed on the appeal and upheld the conviction.